Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada (US 2022/0025222) in view of Ukei (US 2016/0280967) taken in view of the evidence given by Foreverest (“Reactive Emulsifiers” web article).
Re claims 1, 3, 6, and 8-12, Hamada discloses a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) [1] comprising an acrylic polymer made from monomers including methyl acrylate, ethylhexyl acrylate, (meth)acrylic acid, and styrene [29, 33, 48], reactive surfactant [63, 73], and chain transfer agent [61]. The reactive surfactant includes that known under the tradename Adeka Reasoap SR-1025 [70] which as evidenced by Foreverest (page 3, Fig 2 and page 4, Table 1) has formula identical to that presently claimed where n=10. Given that the reactive surfactant is identical to that presently claimed, it would inherently contain components which are capable of acting as an internal crosslinker. The chain transfer agent includes dodecyl mercaptan [61].
Hamada does not disclose the average particle size of the adhesive.
Ukei discloses pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) [2] comprising acrylic polymer having average particle diameter of 100-500nm to obtain a smooth PSA layer with good inter-particle adhesion [136].
In light of the motivation of for using acrylic polymer, i.e. adhesive, with average particle size of 100-500 nm as disclosed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use adhesive with such average particle diameter, including that presently claimed, in Hamada in order to produce an adhesive that can be applied smoothly and has good adhesion.
While Hamada discloses the PSA can be used labels [100], there is no disclosure in Hamada in view of Ueki that the PSA is for clear-on-clear labels.
However, the recitation in the claims that the PSA is “for clear-on-clear labels” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Hamada in view of Ueki disclose PSA as presently claimed, it is clear that the PSA would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. for clear-on-clear labels, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
There is no disclosure in Hamada in view of Ueki that the PSA is resistant to water whitening or has initial tack, peel adhesion, or overall migration as claimed. However, given that Hamada in view of Ueki disclose PSA as claimed, the PSA would necessarily inherently be resistant to water whitening and have initial tack, peel adhesion, or overall migration identical to that claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant acknowledges the teaching of the claimed PSA but alleges the polymer is in a list; however, it is taught and thus obvious to combine as the formula identical to that presently claimed where n=10. Applicant argues the particle sizes; however these too are taught within the range for the teachings in Hamada produce an adhesive that can be applied smoothly and has good adhesion.
Applicant argues the food safety of adhesives; however a food is not claimed and thus moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights